Clinical Practice Evaluation 2 - Single Placement Encrypted

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S
Nicole Whelan 20475978

TEACHER CANDIDATE NAME______________________________ STUDENT NUMBER____________________
Master of Education in Special Education

PROGRAM: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SPD-590 9/6/2018 12/19/2018

COURSE: _____________________________________________________ START DATE: ____________________________ END DATE: _____________________
PS180 Hugo Newman

COOPERATING SCHOOL NAME: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
New York
SCHOOL STATE: ___________________________________
Christine Wang
COOPERATING TEACHER/MENTOR NAME: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Shannon Burton
GCU FACULTY SUPERVISOR NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

EVALUATION 2S TOTAL
POINTS 92.28 points 92.28 %
25 2,500.00 2307 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
100
0 0 0 0 0

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

No Evidence Ineffective Foundational Emerging Proficient Distinguished
(The GCU Faculty (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Teacher Candidates within (Target level for Teacher (Usually reserved for master
Supervisor should create a this range require a this range require a this range may benefit from a Candidates) Teacher Candidates)
plan with the Teacher Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan) Professional Growth Plan)
Candidate to determine
how the Teacher Candidate
will meet this standard in
future evaluations)
No Evidence 1 to 49 50 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 92 93 to 100
There is no evidence that The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the The performance of the
the performance of the Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate is Teacher Candidate meets Teacher Candidate
Teacher Candidate met this insufficient in meeting this underdeveloped in meeting developing in meeting this this standard and consistently exceeds this
standard or expectations standard and expectations this standard and standard and expectations for expectations for a Teacher standard and all
for a Teacher Candidate for a Teacher Candidate expectations for a Teacher a Teacher Candidate during Candidate during student expectations for a Teacher
during student teaching. during student teaching. Candidate during student student teaching. teaching. Candidate during student
teaching. teaching.
Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

1.1
Teacher candidates create developmentally appropriate instruction that takes into account individual students’ 88 1.00
strengths, interests, and needs and enables each student to advance and accelerate his or her learning.
1.2
Teacher candidates collaborate with families, communities, colleagues, and other professionals to promote 90
student growth and development. 1.00
Evidence
(The GCU Faculty Supervisor should detail the evidence or lack of evidence from the Teacher Candidate in meeting this standard. For lack of evidence, please provide suggestions
for improvement and the actionable steps for growth. )
Ms. Whelan uses a multitude of instructional strategies and activities that are academically rigorous and highly engaging.


Candidate to determine
how the Teacher Candidate
will meet this standard in
future evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

2.1
Teacher candidates design, adapt, and deliver instruction to address each student’s diverse learning strengths 92 1.00
and needs and create opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning in different ways.
2.2
Teacher candidates incorporate language development tools into planning and instruction, including strategies
for making content accessible to English language students and for evaluating and supporting their 92 1.00
development of English proficiency.
2.3
Teacher candidates access resources, supports, specialized assistance and services to meet particular learning 92 1.00
differences or needs.
Evidence
Ms. Whelan consistently ensures student learning through modeling, guided practice, and independent practice.


Candidate to determine how
the Teacher Candidate will
meet this standard in future
evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

3.1
Teacher candidates manage the learning environment to actively and equitably engage students by organizing, 92 1.00
allocating, and coordinating the resources of time, space, and students’ attention.
3.2
Teacher candidates communicate verbally and nonverbally in ways that demonstrate respect for and
responsiveness to the cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives students bring to the learning
93
1.00
environment.
Evidence
Ms. Whelan deals in an appropriate way with challenging situations and students.


evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

4.1
Teacher candidates stimulate student reflection on prior content knowledge, link new concepts to familiar 94 1.00
concepts, and make connections to students’ experiences.
4.2
Teacher candidates use supplementary resources and technologies effectively to ensure accessibility and 95 1.00
relevance for all students.
4.3
Teacher candidates create opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master academic language in their 94 1.00
content area.
Evidence
Ms. Whelan actively seeks and implements new instructional strategies.


evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

5.1
Teacher candidates engage students in applying content knowledge to real-world problems through the lens of 94 1.00
interdisciplinary themes (e.g., financial literacy, environmental literacy).
5.2
Teacher candidates facilitate students’ ability to develop diverse social and cultural perspectives that expand 85 1.00
their understanding of local and global issues and create novel approaches to solving problems.
Evidence
The classroom activities are rigorous and interesting to the students.


evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

6.1
1.00
Teacher candidates design assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and minimize 87
sources of bias that can distort assessment results.
6.2
Teacher candidates work independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to 95 1.00
understand each student’s progress and to guide planning.
6.3
Teacher candidates prepare all students for the demands of particular assessment formats and make
appropriate modifications in assessments or testing conditions especially for students with disabilities and 95 1
language learning needs.
Evidence
Ms. Whelan establishes and communicates clear assessment criteria to students.


evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

7.1
Teacher candidates plan how to achieve each student’s learning goals, choosing appropriate strategies and 91 1.00
accommodations, resources, and materials to differentiate instruction for individuals and groups of students.
7.2
Teacher candidates develop appropriate sequencing of learning experiences and provide multiple ways to 91 1.00
demonstrate knowledge and skill.
7.3
Teacher candidates plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior student 96 1.00
knowledge, and student interest.
Evidence
Ms. Whelan regularly and effectively implements the lesson plan components, as reflected in lesson plans and daily work.


evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

8.1
Teacher candidates vary their role in the instructional process (e.g., instructor, facilitator, coach, audience) in 94 1.00
relation to the content, purpose of instruction, and student needs
8.2
Teacher candidates engage students in using a range of learning skills and technology tools to access, interpret, 94 1.00
evaluate, and apply information.
8.3
Teacher candidates ask questions to stimulate discussion that serve different purposes (e.g., probing for
student understanding, helping students articulate their ideas and thinking processes, stimulating curiosity,
90
1.00
and helping students to question).
Evidence
The classroom activities are rigorous and interesting to the students.


evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

9.1
Independently and in collaboration with colleagues, teacher candidates use a variety of data (e.g., systematic 1.00
observation, information about students, and research) to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and learning and 92
to adapt planning and practice.
9.2
Teacher candidates actively seek professional, community, and technological resources, within and outside the 95 1.00
school, as supports for analysis, reflection, and problem solving.
Evidence
Ms. Whelan always meets deadlines for lesson plans.


evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

10.1
Teacher candidates use technological tools and a variety of communication strategies to build local and global 93 1.00
learning communities that engage students, families, and colleagues.
10.2
Teacher candidates advocate to meet the needs of students, to strengthen the learning environment, and to 93 1.00
enact system change.
Evidence
Ms. Whelan analyzes classroom and school assessment results in ways that are often effective in the understanding of student progress and learning needs.

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

evaluations)
teaching. teaching.
Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Teacher candidates demonstrate an understanding of their impact on student learning as evidenced in the
Student Teaching Evaluation of Performance (STEP) and other formative and summative assessments. 98 1.00
Evidence
Ms. Whelan puts together a thorough plan to address learning needs post-assessment

INSTRUCTIONS
Please review the "Total Scored Percentage" for accuracy and add any attachments before completing the "Agreement and Signature" section.
Total Scored Percentage:

92.28 %
ATTACHMENTS
Clinical Practice Time Log:
(Required)
Attachment 1:
(Optional)
Attachment 2:
(Optional)
AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

This evaluation reflects the results of a collaborative conference including feedback from the Cooperating / Mentor Teacher. The GCU Faculty Supervisor and
Cooperating /Mentor Teacher should collaboratively review the performance in each category prior to the evaluation meeting.
I attest this submission is accurate, true, and in compliance with GCU policy guidelines, to the best of my ability to do so.
GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

Dr. Shannon Burton
Dr. Shannon Burton (Nov 14, 2018) Nov 14, 2018
Reading The Weather, Reading the World
Bend II/ Session 10: Reading Various Types of Texts
Materials:
-“In the Grip of Epic Drought” article
- “A Summer Scorcher” article
-Anchor chart
-Smart board
-Power point
CCSS: RI.4.1, RI.4.2, RI.4.3 RI.4.5, RI.4.6, RI.4.7, RI.4.8, RI.4.9, RI.4.10
WALT/WILF: We are learning to read various nonfiction texts to conduct research. What I am
looking for is for students to conduct research using nonfiction text and articles to compare and
contrast how authors organize their information.
Lesson: Launching a Whole Class Research Project.
Mini Lesson: The teacher will remind students that they learned one of the challenges when
reading nonfiction texts is that many of them are structured in hybrid ways. An example of this is
that an article might open with a long story, then shift into a main idea and supporting details
format. Readers who are using the structure of a text to help them collect what is most important
will need to follow the cues in the text to notice that the structure is changing.
Review in power point: “Signals Authors Use to let us know when to read with certain lens”.
Have students turn and talk to their reading partner and discuss what they already know about
reading narrative nonfiction differently than reading expository nonfiction. The teacher will then
ask students to share two to three ideas.
“Readers, the nonfiction text you are reading now are coming in a huge variety of shapes and
sizes, genres and structures. Readers are wise to take a moment to think about the kind of text
they are reading, so they can figure out how to read the text they are holding”.
Investigate questions: display in power point
Display article: “A Summer Scorcher” by Jennifer Marino Walters and “In the Grip of Epic
Drought” by Alysa Goethe. Read both articles together.
Have students turn and talk to a partner and discuss: in What ways do authors write nonfiction
articles differently from nonfiction books? What is similar?
Review in power point: In What Ways Do Authors Writing Nonfiction Articles Differently form
Nonfiction Books?
Link: Remind students that they are going to encounter several different kinds of texts while
researching their topic and that when you encounter a new kind of text, it is helpful to ask
yourself, “How is it different from other kinds of text? How will I read this kind of text?
Students then will be sent to work in their Extreme Weather groups to continue research and will
use their graphic organizers to do so.

Clinical Practice Evaluation 2 - Single Placement Encrypted

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clinical Practice Evaluation 2 - Single Placement Encrypted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLINICAL PRACTICE EVALUATION 2S

Nicole Whelan 20475978

Master of Education in Special Education

SPD-590 9/6/2018 12/19/2018

PS180 Hugo Newman

FOR COURSE INSTRUCTORS ONLY:

Nicole Whelan 20475978

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 1: Student Development Score No Evidence

Nicole Whelan 20475978

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 2: Learning Differences Score No Evidence

Nicole Whelan 20475978

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 3: Learning Environments Score No Evidence

Nicole Whelan 20475978

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 4: Content Knowledge Score No Evidence

Nicole Whelan 20475978

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 5: Application of Content Score No Evidence

Nicole Whelan 20475978

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 6: Assessment Score No Evidence

Nicole Whelan 20475978

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Score No Evidence

Nicole Whelan 20475978

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies Score No Evidence

Nicole Whelan 20475978

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Score No Evidence

Nicole Whelan 20475978

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Scoring Guide

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration Score No Evidence

Nicole Whelan 20475978

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning

Grand Canyon University: Impact on Student Learning Score No Evidence

Nicole Whelan 20475978

Total Scored Percentage:

AGREEMENT AND SIGNATURE

GCU Faculty Supervisor E-Signature Date

You might also like